I've never met a mean guy in a bike shop. Mostly passionate people, some jaded people who've heard it all before. This works for me and it should work for you, too, is a natural attitude. I think the comfort aspect that is so important to us, um, older guys really is lost in bike shops and certainly the bulk of the crank-them-out bike industry, where new, better, and techy sells. Paraphrased from the first post - seat high, bars down, that's where your power is. That's where his power is. My power is comfortably staying on the bike for a long ride.
On Wednesday, July 31, 2013 12:36:24 AM UTC-5, IanA wrote: > > Excellent points made. I hope that I positively influenced the purchase > of the bike. Only time will (may?) tell. After the positive and > thoughtful comments from all listers on this thread, I might have been a > lot more circumspect in helping my friend. Perhaps I would have just > presented opinions of frame size, fit, tire clearance etc., based solely on > my own experience of riding the actual bikes I own/have owned (I think I > mostly did). I believe that following a certain amount of randonneur > experience (more on the modest distance spectrum), extensive touring > experience and extensive commuting that I have a pretty good handle on what > works for me. As David rightly implies, what works for one is a subjective > finding and might not work for someone else. In retrospect, perhaps it > would have been better if my friend had bought a 60cm frame with an uncut > steerer, or perhaps not. Perhaps either bike frame would serve equally as > well. I do hope my friend enjoys the ownership of his new bike, I feel > somewhat invested in it. In future, I will bear in mind all the points put > forward in this thread and wade the waters of advice/opinion with great > trepidation. > > Ian A. > > On Tuesday, July 30, 2013 2:46:30 PM UTC-6, David Craig wrote: >> >> It's tough to fit a bike. Really, it's much tougher than I think it seems >> to many of us. It's way tougher than selling shoes and even that isn't >> straightforward. Can we give well-intentioned shop owners, manufacturers >> and bike shop kids the benefit of the doubt? That doesn't mean we should >> blindly accept their views as truth. Caveat emptor. >> >> Regarding the challenges of bike fitting: >> >> First, there are the assumptions and values that go along with any fit >> "system" - including Grant's. There's the problem that there somehow needs >> to be any system and that we somehow feel better if we've been sized by a >> system rather than trusting ourselves. As Ron points out, science sells. >> Why do we need science to tell us a bike fits? "Just ride," right? In a >> perfect world, we'd each have bodies that were perfectly proportioned, with >> no underlying injuries or anatomical quirks and any bike we'd buy would >> instantly adapt to us as we age, get fitter, decided to ride more or less, >> gain experience, or use the bike for different purposes. So, even a bike >> that's perfectly "fitted" and comfortable at the moment of purchase may not >> continue to be so after the glow of the purchase has faded or conditions >> change. It's funny that we'd expect anyone to fit a bike properly when >> proper fit is all about our own subjective feelings of comfort. The problem >> is exacerbated when the prospective rider hasn't really ridden since he or >> she was a kid. While I'll bet most of us on this list can no longer recall >> a time when virtually ANY bike would have felt uncomfortable, the beginner >> is completely dependent on someone else saying "this should work" so they >> discount their own misgivings. Or . . . contrary folks with their own minds >> that they are, they resist our well intentioned advice because what we're >> suggesting just doesn't *feel* right. Ever tried to convince a child >> that her or his seat height is wrong? >> >> There's also the complication of dealing with what people believe they >> want and need. Folks look at a bike with fat tires, a stack o spacers, bars >> way up there, triple chainrings or even a perfectly good bike without lugs >> and think "that bike ain't for me." There are these individually defined >> aesthetics to consider and there's also the psychology of our own ego's. >> There are the influences we value over others or that we unconsciously >> accept. The issue isn't limited to bikes. I can't tell you how many folks >> I've met with outdoor gear that really isn't suited to who they are and >> what they actually do. Rather, they bought the gear (encouraged by a >> friend, a salesperson, an instructor, someone on a list like this . . .) to >> fit who they want to be. Nothing against instructors, salespeople, friends, >> etc., but we all also have our own biases and sometimes people ask us for >> our advice without accepting it as tentatively as they should. For our >> part, sometimes we speak our own truths a little too confidently. In the >> end, folks end up with too-tippy beautiful kayaks that the expert said >> they'd "grow into" or overly complex stoves that use multiple fuel types >> for imaginary expeditions, or steel bikes that can be repaired by a guy >> with a turban and a torch . . . just in case. Gosh, there are people in >> Walnut Creek buying "the best axes in the world" who have never used any >> axe and will probably never use the axe they buy from RBW. Manufacturers >> and retailers stay in business by selling a substantial amount of stuff >> that people don't actually *need, *that actually doesn't fit and that >> they really can't afford. Advertisers discovered long ago that most of us >> are immature enough to think that our possessions define who we are. >> >> We are funny and fickle creatures and I can't imagine trying to make a >> living catering to our likes as a manufacturer or retailer. Although their >> actions irritate me constantly, I'm willing to cut folks in the bike >> business some slack because they wouldn't do what they do if it caused them >> to go out of business - somebody buys the stuff - more do than don't. They >> are trying to stay in business by building and selling what actually sells. >> >> I'm truly glad that Ian was able to positively influence the purchase of >> his friend's bike. Perhaps his friend will continue to ride his new bike >> and it will continue to fit. >> >> DC >> >> >> >> On Tuesday, July 30, 2013 5:46:03 AM UTC-7, Ron Mc wrote: >>> >>> in a perfect world, we'd all have custom-made frames with top tubes and >>> seat tubes made just for us. Most of us can't. My buddy and I are both >>> 6'3", but my legs are 5" longer than his, and his torso is 5" longer than >>> mine. He rides a 59cm and needs a long top tube, I ride a 64cm and need a >>> short top tube. So you get close and dial it in with seat and stem. It >>> really isn't rocket science. The Snow Job is what marketers call using >>> science to sell - it's a strategy you see prevalent in competitive markets. >>> Bicycling happens to be the single largest sports entertainment market on >>> the planet. >>> >>> On Tuesday, July 30, 2013 7:37:51 AM UTC-5, stevef wrote: >>>> >>>> Surly measures center to top, but the seat tube extends past the >>>> toptube a bit. You can kindof see what I mean in this geometry diagram: >>>> >>>> http://surlybikes.com/bikes/cross_check_ss/geometry >>>> >>>> Pre-cutting a steel steerer (unlike a carbon fiber one that has a >>>> maximum recommended number of spacers from the manufacturer) is nearly >>>> criminal, IMO. >>>> >>>> Steve >>>> >>>> On Saturday, July 27, 2013 7:47:00 AM UTC-4, EricP wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Actually, it sounds to me like everyone knew what they were doing. >>>>> I've owned a number of Surly bikes over the years. The first one, a >>>>> Cross >>>>> Check, was 62cm. Realized after about 2 months I'd never get comfortable >>>>> with the handlebars so far away. Ended up putting Albatross bars on that >>>>> bike and was able to ride it for a while. Still, it ended up being too >>>>> big. >>>>> >>>>> Surly bikes seem to have a longer top tube and reach than a comparable >>>>> Rivendell. They also measure bikes differently than Rivendell. Center >>>>> to >>>>> center, as opposed to center to top. >>>>> >>>>> My 62cm Rivendell SimpleOne has roughly the same amount of seatpost >>>>> showing as my 58cm Long Haul Trucker. When it was built up, my 58cm >>>>> Cross >>>>> Check had even less post showing. >>>>> >>>>> The only thing I'd fault the shop on is cutting the steerer >>>>> tube before selling the bike. >>>>> >>>>> Glad it worked out for everyone. >>>>> >>>>> Eric Platt >>>>> St. Paul, MN >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 5:18 AM, Michael Hechmer <mhec...@gmail.com>wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Size Matters. And not just in the bike. My experience has been that >>>>>> the larger the shop the smaller the level of knowledge. There are of >>>>>> course exceptions to this, e.g. Harris Cyclery. But most often very >>>>>> large >>>>>> bike shops survive by hiring college age guys, usually steeped in >>>>>> racing, >>>>>> to push a hi volume of Treks, Cannondales, Specialized, etc out the >>>>>> door. >>>>>> One rainy Sunday afternoon I browsed through a large local bike shop >>>>>> and >>>>>> watched a middle age women tell a very young sales clerk she wanted a >>>>>> bike >>>>>> to ride on "paths". He steered her to a full suspension mt. bike! >>>>>> Yesterday the latest issue of Buycycle magazine arrived (uninvited) >>>>>> into >>>>>> my home. The cover headline was "Have More Fun" and pictured a man >>>>>> riding >>>>>> in shorts and a polo shirt, but the bike had 16 spoke radial wheels, >>>>>> road >>>>>> pedals, and bars about 6" below the seat. It didn't look like fun; it >>>>>> looked silly. >>>>>> >>>>>> Moral of the story - Newbies shouldn't buy solo. >>>>>> >>>>>> Michael >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Saturday, July 27, 2013 5:02:48 AM UTC-4, IanA wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> My friend was in the market for a new bicycle with a budget of >>>>>>> around $800.00. He'd looked at various aluminum mountain bikes and >>>>>>> talked >>>>>>> to me about it - he'd mentioned that he'd possibly like a single speed. >>>>>>> I >>>>>>> suggested he check out the Surly line of bikes and maybe push his >>>>>>> budget a >>>>>>> little and get something he'd really enjoy. Being a Rivendell owner >>>>>>> (recent acquisition) and having followed this list and GP's writings >>>>>>> for >>>>>>> the last few years, I have certain ideas about bicycle fit. Not being >>>>>>> a >>>>>>> crotch-worrier, I like to start with the largest straddle-able frame >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> work from there. A fist-full of seat post, bars around saddle height >>>>>>> etc. >>>>>>> Using this formula as a starting basis, I urged my friend to try a >>>>>>> 62cm >>>>>>> Crosscheck (a single speed). He loved it. The store was adamant that >>>>>>> a >>>>>>> 58cm was he needed, with the saddle jacked up a good two fist-fulls and >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> bars well below the saddle height, because "that's where the power is". >>>>>>> My >>>>>>> friend test rode the 58, the 60 and then the 62cm and there was no way >>>>>>> he >>>>>>> was going back. The steerer tubes on all sizes had been cut quite low, >>>>>>> but >>>>>>> on the 62cm, the set-up worked perfectly for my friend. The mechanic >>>>>>> was >>>>>>> not happy about this and I was the unwelcome "expert-friend", even >>>>>>> though >>>>>>> they made the sale and my friend rode out the store on his new bike. >>>>>>> The >>>>>>> one he wanted. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I suppose we all get locked into ideas and philosophies, but without >>>>>>> my input (as right or wrong as it may be), they would have sized him by >>>>>>> putting the saddle height above his hip bone and made the bars a few >>>>>>> inches >>>>>>> below saddle height. This was their fitting method. At the end of the >>>>>>> day, my friend is delighted - he exceeded his budget by $175 and got a >>>>>>> very >>>>>>> pretty bicycle that has clearance for 700 x 45 with fenders. Even with >>>>>>> my >>>>>>> pretty LL there, I was jealous of his purchase. The shop had never >>>>>>> heard >>>>>>> of Rivendell, which made me wonder just how small a corner of the bike >>>>>>> world I must live in, hanging out here on the RBW list. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>> Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. >>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>> send an email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com. >>>>>> To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com. >>>>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. >>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
